Preview Newsletter
Ethicon Media Monitoring 12/14/2017
-
Jury Urged To Punish J&J With Pelvic Mesh Trial Verdict
Dec 13, 2017 | Law 360
By Daniel Siegal
Counsel for a woman alleging she’s been severely hurt by a pelvic mesh product made by Johnson & Johnson unit Ethicon urged a New Jersey jury Wednesday to punish J&J with damages, saying the company had lied about the safety of its product. -
Pelvic mesh case involving Ethicon and Johnson & Johnson kicked back to Cook County court
Dec 13, 2017 | Cook County Record
By Karen Kidd
The case of an Illinois woman injured during a 2013 surgery that included a pelvic mesh is on its way back to Cook County after a federal judge brushed aside a defendant's contentions the case should not be tried in Illinois. -
Federal Court Overseeing Ethicon Hernia Mesh Lawsuits Issues New Order Governing Communications with Plaintiffs’ Treating Physicians
Dec 13, 2017 | RX Injury Help (blog)
By Sandy Liebhard
The federal court overseeing hundreds of hernia mesh lawsuits involving Ethicon, Inc.’s Physiomesh devices has issued a new Order that governs communications with Plaintiffs’ treating physicians. -
New Zealand bans vaginal mesh
Dec 13, 2017 | International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics
New Zealand has become the first major country to effectively ban vaginal mesh implants, after safety concerns were raised about the surgery.
Client Attorney Privileged/Attorney Work Product/At Request of Counsel
Online Sources
-
Jury Urged To Punish J&J With Pelvic Mesh Trial Verdict
Dec 13, 2017 | Law 360
By Daniel Siegal
Law360, Los Angeles (December 13, 2017, 9:59 PM EST) -- Counsel for a woman alleging she’s been severely hurt by a pelvic mesh product made by Johnson & Johnson unit Ethicon urged a New Jersey jury Wednesday to punish J&J with damages, saying the company had lied about the safety of its product.
During closing arguments in the third week of the trial before Bergen County Superior Court Judge Rachelle Harz in Hackensack, Adam Slater of Mazie Slater Katz & Freeman LLC, representing plaintiffs Elizabeth Hrymoc and her husband Tad Hrymoc, told the jury that Ethicon “just didn’t care” enough about patient safety to thoroughly study its Prolift product before bringing it to market, and then kept this information from doctors and patients, because “at Johnson & Johnson marketers run everything.”
“If they cared, they wouldn’t have sold the Prolift, they would have studied it … that’s what should have happened,” he said. “They didn’t need to do this; they knew severe harm was going to happen, and they sold it anyways.”
Slater said that Elizabeth Hrymoc has suffered from chronic pain and pain that prevents sexual intercourse, or dyspareunia, ever since she had the Prolift installed in 2008, and has suffered permanent dysfunction even after having the implant surgically removed years later.
Slater said that while the defendants have argued that other pelvic repair surgical methods also carry risk, those methods have been proven as safe, while Prolift has been shown to carry risks that far outstrip its benefits. Slater added that these risks were kept from doctors, including Elizabeth Hrymoc’s treating surgeon, who he said wouldn’t have recommended the Prolift if he knew all the facts.
Slater asked the jury to award compensatory damages for Elizabeth Hrymoc’s pain and suffering, for her husband’s suffering, because of her injuries, and on top of that, to hit $2.7 billion Ethicon and $70 billion J&J with a punitive damages verdict that will make them sit up and take notice.
“You have a say in the language of your verdict, not only to help Elizabeth, but to punish Johnson & Johnson and to deter them, speaking a language they understand so they don’t do this again, so this trial was for something,” he said.
Elizabeth Hrymoc is among the thousands of women nationwide who have filed suits alleging Ethicon and J&J failed to fully disclose risks associated with its Gynecare Prolift pelvic floor support mesh product, which was on the market from 2005 through 2012.
The Hrymocs’ suit is just the second pelvic mesh suit against Ethicon to go to trial in New Jersey, where the company is headquartered. The trial comes nearly a year after the New Jersey Supreme Court declined to review a jury’s $11.1 million award to the plaintiff in the first pelvic mesh trial.
Elizabeth Hrymoc said she had the Prolift implanted in 2008 to treat a pelvic prolapse, but that it contained a design defect and the defendants knew it was risky but kept this information from consumers.
Hrymoc, who was 62 when she had the mesh implanted, says she has suffered vaginal pain and pain when having sex since then.
She is also alleging that the defendants failed to warn of the risks associated with a second J&J medical device, Trans Vaginal Tape, known as TVT, that was implanted to treat her stress urinary incontinence. The plaintiffs are seeking punitive damages.
On Wednesday morning, William Gage of Butler Snow LLP, representing the defendants, told the jury during his closing argument that the world as it was presented by the plaintiffs in the trial and the world as it really was when Prolift came on the market in 2005 were far, far apart.
Gage said that chronic pain and dyspareunia were known as recurring, tricky problems when it came to pelvic prolapse repair surgery, and that even the Hrymocs’ own experts had written in studies that they were an “Achilles' heel” of the procedure.
“The other thing plainitffs want you to believe is that prolapse surgery involved minimal risk before Prolift. It was the introduction of Prolift that made a perfectly safe surgery dangerous,” he said. “That’s not what the evidence is.”
Gage said that every single one of the post-operation complications that was being blamed on the Prolift did occur, and still occurred, with the other surgical options that were available when Elizabeth Hrymoc had her operation.
Gage added that it wasn’t any defect in the Prolift itself that caused her complications, but rather excessive tightening of the mesh during her surgery by her surgeon.
After the closing arguments, Judge Harz instructed the jury and ordered them to return Thursday morning to begin deliberating.
The Hrymocs are represented by Adam Slater and David Mazie of Mazie Slater Katz & Freeman LLC.
The defendants are represented by Judith Wahrenberger of Ruprecht Hart Weeks & Ricciardulli LLP, Philip Combs of Thomas Combs & Spann PLLC and William Gage of Butler Snow LLP.
The case is Elizabeth Hrymoc et al. v. Ethicon et al., case number L-13696-14, in the Superior Court of the New Jersey, County of Bergen.
--Editing by Nicole Bleier.https://www.law360.com/articles/994521/jury-urged-to-punish-j-j-with-pelvic-mesh-trial-verdict
-
Pelvic mesh case involving Ethicon and Johnson & Johnson kicked back to Cook County court
Dec 13, 2017 | Cook County Record
By Karen Kidd
CHICAGO — The case of an Illinois woman injured during a 2013 surgery that included a pelvic mesh is on its way back to Cook County after a federal judge brushed aside a defendant's contentions the case should not be tried in Illinois.
U.S. District Judge Matthew F. Kennelly said in his decision that defendant company Ethicon's argument that the case's medical defendants are not necessary or indispensable parties in the allegations against Ethicon "is likely true" under federal court rules. However, that does not require the case be severed into two—one between the plaintiffs and Ethicon and the other between the plaintiffs and all the other medical defendants, Kennelly said in his decision.
"And because there are Illinois citizens on both sides of the case and no fraudulent joinder or misjoinder of the medical defendants, there is no basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction," Kennelly said in his decision. "Removal was therefore inappropriate."
Kennelly remanded the case to Cook Count Circuit Court.
Ann M. and Ronald Hullett filed the original suit May 5 in the Cook County Circuit Court, alleging that Ann Hullett was injured during a reconstructive surgery in May 2013 that included an implantation of a Gynecare mesh. The two claim that insufficient measures and negligence contributed to Ann Hullet's injuries.
The Hullet's original suit sought a judgment of more than $50,000.
The medical defendants named in the original lawsuit included Sandra Culbertson, the physician who performed the surgery, University of Chicago Medical Center and Palos Community Hospital. The Hulletts later amended their complaint to add Ethicon and Johnson & Johnson, which designed and manufactured the mesh, as additional defendants in the case. In Kennelly's decision, Ethicon and Johnson & Johnson are referred to collectively as "Ethicon."
The Hulletts and the medical defendants are Illinois citizens. The Ethicon collective alleged that they were improperly added as defendants in the case and later filed a motion to sever the allegations it faced from allegations against the medical defendants, according to Kennelly's decision.
The medical defendants and the Hulletts all objected to Ethicon's motion and asked to have the case sent back to Cook County.
The Hulletts are represented in the case by the firm of Power, Rogers & Smith, of Chicago.
Ethicon is represented by the firm of Tucker Ellis LLP, of Chicago.
https://cookcountyrecord.com/stories/511280777-pelvic-mesh-case-involving-ethicon-and-johnson-johnson-kicked-back-to-cook-county-court
-
Dec 13, 2017 | RX Injury Help (blog)
By Sandy Liebhard
Sandy Liebhard is an Senior Partner at Bernstein Liebhard LLP
The federal court overseeing hundreds of hernia mesh lawsuits involving Ethicon, Inc.’s Physiomesh devices has issued a new Order that governs communications with Plaintiffs’ treating physicians.
The December 12th Order in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Georgia, addresses a Plaintiffs’ Motion that sought to preclude Defendants from engaging in ex parte communications with treating physicians for the purpose of retaining expert witnesses.
The Order indicates that the Court will allow Defendants to engage in such communications, subject to certain restrictions, including:Defendants and their attorneys may not use a physician as an expert in any case where such physician’s current or former patient is a Plaintiff.Defendants and their attorneys will not communicate with the physician-expert about any patient that is a plaintiff in the federal Physiomesh litigation or any related state court proceeding.Defendants and their attorneys are not to use a Plaintiff Fact Sheet or other discovery provided by Plaintiffs to locate or identify an expert.Defendants are restricted to 25 ex parte contacts. Defendants may ask for reconsideration on this issue if this limitation becomes a hardship.Physiomesh Complications and Market Withdrawal
Just over 300 Physiomesh lawsuits are now pending in the Northern District of Georgia, all of which were filed on behalf of plaintiffs who developed serious complications, including hernia recurrence and the need for revision surgery, following hernia repair with a Physiomesh product. Among other things, plaintiffs claim that the multilayer design unique to Physiomesh prevents the implant from incorporating into the body, increasing the risk of adhesions, perforations, infections, mesh erosion, and other painful and debilitating injuries.
In May 2016, Ethicon announced it was withdrawing certain Physiomesh Flexible Composite Mesh patches from the worldwide market, after unpublished data from two European hernia registries indicated that the device was associated with higher average recurrence and revision rates compared to other hernia mesh products used in laparoscopic ventral hernia repair.
Ethicon was unable to determine the cause of these issues and has indicated that it will not be returning the withdrawn hernia mesh products from the market.
https://www.rxinjuryhelp.com/news/2017/12/13/federal-court-overseeing-ethicon-hernia-mesh-lawsuits-issue-new-order-governing-communications-with-plaintiffs-treating-physicians/
-
Dec 13, 2017 | International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics
New Zealand has become the first major country to effectively ban vaginal mesh implants, after safety concerns were raised about the surgery.
The Ministry of Health announced that it had written to suppliers of the mesh device asking them to stop marketing the product from January 2018 or to prove that it is safe.
It follows recent announcements by the UK and Australia that vaginal mesh operations would only be used in the case of organ prolapse.
New Zealand will now effectively ban the use of the implants for the treatment of urinary incontinence, which currently makes up the vast majority of vaginal mesh operations.
A spokesperson for the New Zealand Ministry of Health said the decision had been made after reviewing evidence provided by Australia. He said that the New Zealand government believes that the risks of the vaginal mesh for prolapse and stress incontinence outweigh any benefits.https://www.figo.org/news/new-zealand-bans-vaginal-mesh-0015783
Client Attorney Privileged/Attorney Work Product/At Request of Counsel
Online Sources
Add recipients
Suggested